Collapse of Earth's Biosphere A Case of Planetary Treason

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/362805618
Collapse of Earth's Biosphere: A Case of Planetary Treason
Article in Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal · August 2022

DOI: 10.14738/assrj.98.12935
CITATIONS READS
0 382
2 authors:
J. Marvin Herndon Mark Whiteside

Transdyne Corporation, California Florida Department of Health in Monroe County
169 PUBLICATIONS 2,474 CITATIONS 42 PUBLICATIONS 831 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by J. Marvin Herndon on 19 August 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 9, No. 8
Publication Date: August 25, 2022

DOI:10.14738/assrj.98.12935.

Herndon, J. M., & Whiteside, M. (2022). Collapse of Earth’s Biosphere: A Case of Planetary Treason. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 9(8). 259-281.
Collapse of Earth’s Biosphere: A Case of Planetary Treason

J. Marvin Herndon
Transdyne Corporation, San Diego, CA 92131 USA

Mark Whiteside
Florida Department of Health, Key West, FL 33040 USA

ABSTRACT
Earth’s life support systems are breaking down, including the stratospheric ozone
layer, which protects all higher life on the planet from deadly ultraviolet radiation.
This breakdown is a direct result of human activities including the large-scale
manipulation of processes that affect Earth’s climate, otherwise known as
geoengineering. We present further evidence that coal fly ash, utilized in
tropospheric aerosol geoengineering, is the primary cause of stratospheric ozone
depletion, not chlorofluorocarbons, as “decreed” by the Montreal Protocol. The
misdiagnosis was a potentially fatal mistake by mankind. Coal fly ash particles,
uplifted to the stratosphere, are collected and trapped by polar stratospheric
clouds. In springtime, as these clouds begin to melt/evaporate, multiple coal fly ash
compounds and elements are released to react with and consume stratospheric
ozone. Contrary to the prevailing narrative, the stratospheric ozone layer has
already been badly damaged and now increasingly deadly ultraviolet radiation, UV-
B and UV-C, penetrates to Earth’s surface. Our time is short to permanently end all
geoengineering activities, and to reduce and/or eliminate all sources of aerosolized
coal fly ash, including first and foremost the jet-sprayed emplacements into the
troposphere that are systematically breaking down Earth’s support systems and
poisoning life on this planet.

DELIBERATE COLLAPSE OF EARTH’S BIOSPHERE
Anyone with a deep connection to nature can see how badly the natural world is suffering. Once
healthy forest are now dying. Fields and roadsides no longer bustle with insect life and each
spring and fall migration brings fewer and fewer birds. The richness and diversity of life on
Earth is disappearing at an incredible rate (Figure 1). Beyond the explosion of species
extinction, there are massive population declines of both plants and animals with cascading
effects on ecosystems necessary for our continued existence [1]. Human activities have
destroyed over two-thirds of the world’s wildlife in just the past fifty years [2, 3] and there is
no end in sight. Few scientists have found the courage to sound the alarm about our dire
situation [4]. And far fewer realize that much of our current environmental crisis is deliberately
caused.

Science appropriately applied has the potential to improve life on Earth. But for decades Earth
science has been twisted and defiled, used as a tool to disrupt natural processes on a global
scale, to destroy life, and to deceive humanity. Here we disclose the causal commonality
underlying the collapse of the biosphere which, we submit, constitutes no less than Planetary
Treason.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 8, August-2022

Figure 1. The global decline in 20,811 monitored wildlife populations of 4,392 species since
1970.

UNITED NATIONS COMPLICITY
The United Nations has been at the forefront of activities related to the destruction of Earth’s
natural environment and the collapse of the biosphere.

The 1978 United Nations’ “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of
Environmental Modification Techniques” [ENMOD] [5], as we revealed [6], obligates signatory
nations to fundamentally compromise their own sovereignty and to bring about widespread,
permanent agricultural devastation. Instead of prohibiting “Hostile Use of Environmental
Modification Techniques”, as its title suggests, ENMOD obligates signatory nations to participate
in unspecified “peaceful” environmental modification activities performed by unspecified
entities, under unspecified circumstances, without limitation to harm. Whether harm is
inflicted on a nation or a region’s agriculture, its environment, or on the health of its citizenry
does not matter from ENMOD’s international legal point of view because its intent is “peaceful.”
Nevertheless, large-scale environment modification cannot be construed as “peaceful.” Instead,
it is fundamentally hostile as it damages Earth’s self-protective natural processes.

The veil of ENMOD deception was pierced by applying precise knowledge of contract law to
ENMOD’s Articles [6]. The highly secret “peaceful” environmental modification project activity
was discovered by an accidental release of material “pseudo-cryoconite” from an aircraft in
2016 [7, 8], which appears to have been formulated to melt Arctic ice, presumably, to open a
northern passage for ships from China.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 260

Herndon, J. M., & Whiteside, M. (2022). Collapse of Earth’s Biosphere: A Case of Planetary Treason. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal,
9(8). 259-281.

A more familiar display of the United Nations’ sanctioned perversion of Earth’s natural
environment is the near-daily, near-global jet-sprayed particulate pollution of the troposphere
shown in Figure 2. Forensic scientific investigations demonstrate that the jet-sprayed material
is consistent with coal fly ash, the toxic waste product of burning coal [9-13].

Figure 2. From [14]. Deliberate jet-emplaced particulate trails, clockwise from top left San
Diego, California (USA); Karnack (Egypt); London (England); Danby, Vermont (USA);
Luxembourg (Luxembourg); Jaipur (India).

The coal fly ash jet-emplaced pollution, shown in Figure 2, is conducted covertly without the
informed consent of the citizens who must breathe the toxic particles.

Published scientific and medical articles implicate aerosolized coal fly ash in neurodegenerative
disease [15], COPD and respiratory disease [16, 17], lung cancer [18], cardiovascular disease
[19], COVID-19 and immunopathology [20, 21].
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.98.12935 261


Aerosolized coal fly ash contributes to global warming [22], disrupts habitats [23],
contaminates the environment with mercury [24], decimates populations of insects [25], bats
[26], and birds [27]. Aerosolized coal fly ash also kills trees [28, 29], exacerbates wildfires [30],
enables harmful algae in our waters [31], and destroys the stratospheric ozone layer that
shields surface-life from the sun’s deadly ultraviolet radiation [32, 33]. Despite the official
narratives of “ozone recovery” due to the Montreal Protocol, stratospheric ozone levels
continue to decline [34]. Ozone depletion has already led to an alarming increase in deadly
ultraviolet radiation, UV-B and UV-C, penetration to Earth’s surface, with increasingly apparent
devastation to both plants and animals [35-38].

UNITED NATIONS CONFLICTED
United Nations complicity in poisoning the air we breathe is best indicated by the inactions of
the World Health Organization. On two occasions we submitted a “perspective” to the Bulletin
of the World Health Organization warning of the adverse health consequences of deliberately
jet-emplaced aerosolized coal fly ash into the air we breathe. In each instance those
submissions were rejected without ever being subject to peer-review [17].

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988 by the World
Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme allegedly “to
provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate
policies.” The IPCC, however, is agenda-driven and serves to promulgate the false idea that
global warming is mainly caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The so-called
“scientific information,” is not scientific at all. First, there is no mention of the climate
consequences of the jet-sprayed particulate matter, such as shown in Figure 2. Second,
subtracting two large numbers, radiation from the sun minus radiation from the Earth, yields a
small number that is overwhelmed by errors. Third, and most important, global warming and
regional warming are caused mainly by tropospheric particulates [11, 39-44], not greenhouse
gases.

On one hand the United Nations’ IPCC deceives the public as to the cause of global warming
[45]. On the other hand, the United Nations’ sanctions are in fact causing global warming and
climate chaos by “geoengineering” actions undertaken in secret under aegis of its Trojan horse
International Treaty [5]. All the while, the World Health Organization ignores and suppresses
mention of the adverse public health consequences of the tropospheric jet-emplacement of
toxic coal fly ash [17]. But that is not all. Since 1989, the United Nations has exacerbated the
destruction of stratospheric ozone, Earth’s self-protective mechanism against the sun’s deadly
ultraviolet radiation.

The sun’s light and warmth are crucial for life on Earth, but without our planet’s natural self-
protection mechanism, the sun’s deadly ultraviolet radiation wreaks havoc. The sun’s
ultraviolet radiation interacts with the gases of the atmosphere forming ozone, O3, a highly
reactive gas that destroys the deadly ultraviolet radiation before it reaches Earth’s surface. In
1974, Molina and Rowland [46] advanced a theoretical mechanism for ozone destruction
putatively caused by chlorofluorocarbon compounds (CFC’s), which were used for a variety of
industrial purposes including refrigerants, spray cans, solvents, and foaming agents to create
insulation.

9(8). 259-281.

In 1989, the United Nations (UN) formally adopted the “Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer” that included regulating numerous halogen-containing chemicals that
readily form gases [47]. In doing so, the United Nations decreed that said halogen-containing
chemicals were in fact the main cause of ozone depletion.

Despite the official narrative of “gradual ozone recovery” due to the Montreal Protocol, which
led to the phasing out and later banning of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s), the truth is that for 33
years Earth’s stratospheric ozone continues to decline, and atmospheric scientists either do not
know or will not say how badly the ozone layer has been damaged. The rapidly increasing
penetration of ultraviolet radiation, UV-B and UV-C, to Earth’s surface indicates a potentially
dire depletion of stratospheric ozone [35-38]. The clearly visible destructive effects of
ultraviolet radiation on global ecosystems, including forests [48-50], coral reefs [51, 52], and
insects and microorganisms [53, 54] should be a warning sign that stratospheric ozone
depletion may be the biosphere’s most imminent threat [38].

The Antarctic ozone hole has worsened (Figure 3): Recently a large ozone hole was observed
in the Arctic [55], and another in the tropics [56]. From these indications, as well as from the
data shown in Figure 3 [57] and other data [58, 59], one thing is abundantly clear: The Montreal
Protocol misdiagnosed the cause of stratospheric ozone depletion, and its sanctions on
chlorofluorocarbons have not been the solution to this catastrophic problem.


Figure 3. The current and historical status of stratospheric ozone revealed by measurements of
UV Index disclosing the worsening of the Antarctic ozone hole. From [57]

COAL FLY ASH DESTRUCTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
In two previous scientific articles [32, 33], we questioned the idea that chlorofluorocarbon
compounds (CFC’s) are the main agents responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion, and
presented considerable evidence that aerosolized coal fly ash is likely the most significant
major cause of stratospheric ozone depletion (Figure 4), a cause that has been overlooked by

9(8). 259-281.

the scientific community. Here we review the evidence from the previous two articles [32, 33]
and present additional supporting evidence that taken together indicates that aerosolized coal
fly ash is a prime driver of environmental collapse and the precipitous decline in wildlife
populations.

Figure 4. Graphic illustrating the major sources of aerosolized coal fly ash lofted into a particle
laden polar stratospheric cloud, and some of the many components of coal fly ash that directly
kill ozone [13, 32]

The use of coal is beset with serious environmental problems, including the formation of acid
rain by sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides. But far more devastating problems are caused by coal
fly ash, the annual global production of which was reported in 2014 as 130 million metric
tonnes [60].


During industrial coal burning, the heavy ash settles beneath the burner; the light ash, coal fly
ash, forms in the gases above the burner and exits the smokestacks, unless, as in Western
nations, it is trapped by electrostatic precipitators and sequestered. Even so, ultrafine aerosols
from coal burning are likely to escape electrostatic precipitators [61] or be wind-blown from
sequestration areas [62]. But the most devastating adverse consequence for life on this planet
is the deliberate, covert, near-daily, near-global jet-emplacement of particulates, evidenced as
coal fly ash, into the upper troposphere (Figure 2) [6, 13, 24, 63].

For decades, with increasing frequency and geographic range, particulate matter has been jet-
sprayed into the troposphere (Figure 2). Internationally, officials decline to provide either the
composition or the intent of the tropospheric particulate emplacement, and falsely assert that
the jet-trails [64] are harmless ice-crystal contrails [65]. Academics participate in the deception
[66, 67].

We published evidence that coal fly ash is the main aerosolized particulate jet-sprayed into the
troposphere [23, 63, 68] by comparing element ratios relative to barium in rainwater and
melted snow with corresponding ratios measured in the lixiviate of coal fly ash leaching
experiments [69, 70] (Figure 5).


9(8). 259-281.

Figure 5. From [71], showing the similarity of element ratios measured in rainwater and snow
with the range of comparable element ratios measured in the laboratory lixiviate of water-
leach experiments [69, 70]

We have presented evidence [24] that tropospheric post-chemtrail snowfalls can collect and
bring down coal fly ash aerosol particulates in a manner similar to the physical-chemical
technique called co-precipitation [72] (Figure 6). One phenomenon we observed pertains to
snow mold which sometimes forms beneath snow in northern latitudes, for example in
Wisconsin, USA and Canada (Figure 7).


Figure 6. From [27], comparison of analytical results with the ranges of European [69] and
American [70] coal fly ash samples

Figure 7. Snow mold fibers observed and sampled as snow was beginning to melt. From [24]

9(8). 259-281.

In springtime, as the snow begins to melt, it releases the trapped coal fly ash particles which
descend and are re-trapped on the underlying snow mold. These observations suggest a
commonality in behavior that is applicable to Polar Stratospheric Clouds and ozone destruction
[32].

In 1970, Rosinski et al. [73] published an article appropriately entitled “Cirrus Clouds as
Collectors of Aerosol Particles.” In Figure 8 we present a re-plot of their mass ratios, converted
to atom ratios, for comparison to average atom ratios of a set of measurements on 613 coal fly
ash samples [74].

Figure 8. Fe/Ca, Fe/Na, and Ca/Na measurements of tropospheric cirrus cloud particles from
[73] compared to the average values of corresponding ratios from 613 coal fly ash
measurements [74]. Arbitrary abscissa units

Aerosolized coal fly ash has largely escaped notice as being involved in stratospheric ozone
depletion, much less being the principal culprit [32, 33]. Previously, the origin of metal ions in
the upper atmosphere has been ascribed to the evaporation of micro-meteors crossing the
Earth’s orbit and to mineral dust [75], but not to coal fly ash. The constituents of coal fly ash are
considerably more reactive with ozone than either meteoric or mineral dust particles.

In 1982, McCormick et al. [76] reported sightings of Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC) by the
Stratospheric Aerosol Measurement II (SAM II) satellite system. From SAM II data, Hamill et al.
[77] concluded that light extinction could not be due to ice crystals alone, which implies
significant particulate matter is associated with stratospheric clouds.

Polar mesospheric clouds, also known as noctilucent clouds, are thin layers of ice particles that
occur between 82 and 87 km in the high-latitude summer mesosphere. Lidar measurements,
using iron spectral wavelengths of 372 and 374 nm, show that these clouds overlap in altitude
with a layer of iron, which they take up [78]. These results confirm our suggestion that coal fly
ash particles (not just iron metal), lofted into the stratosphere, not only serve as ice-nucleating
agents, but are trapped by clouds, including polar stratospheric clouds [32, 33]. In springtime,
the icy stratospheric clouds melt/evaporate releasing their trapped coal fly ash particles, and
making those ozone-consuming coal fly ash particles readily available for destruction-reaction
with ambient stratospheric ozone [32, 33].

COAL FLY ASH IN THE STRATOSPHERIC POLAR VORTEX
Coal fly ash effectively nucleates ice at conditions relevant to mixed phase clouds. Enhanced ice
nucleation by coal fly ash aerosol particles is initiated by their porous structure [79]. In the
scientific literature, coal fly ash particles are often classified or confused with mineral dust
particles. The majority of cirrus clouds freeze, or nucleate around two types of seeds, “mineral


dust” and metallic aerosols, presumably with important contributions from coal fly ash to both
categories [80]. But as we describe with examples, there is considerable diversity of chemical
composition which is characteristic of coal fly ash mineralogy.

Figure 9 shows an example of a captured tropospheric ice nucleus consisting of nanometer
carbon balls [81] compared with similar carbon balls extracted from coal fly ash [82, 83].

Figure 9. AA: Tropospheric ice nucleus composed of nanometer size carbon balls, adapted from
[81]; A and B: similar carbon balls extracted from coal fly ash, adapted from [82, 83]

Carbon nanoparticles from coal fly ash occur in a variety of forms, as shown in Table 1, some of
which have been observed in the polar stratosphere [84], for example, Figure 10.

Table 1. Different carbon nanomaterials extracted from coal fly ash. Adapted from [83].
Types of Nano-Carbons Additional Descriptions References
Fullerene (C60) Hollow, spherical [85] [86]
[87] [88]
Nanocarbon and nanocoating Nanoscale sooty or graphitic fullerene-like [89] [90]
carbons; porous nanocoating [91]
Carbon nanotubes Single-walled or multi-walled; diameter of 8- [92] [86]
20 nm; amorphous and crystalline nature [93] [94]
Carbon nanoballs 5-10 nm [95]
Carbon onions Nanopolyhedra, onion-like particles [96]
Chars Porous, carbon-rich particles [97] [98]
Soots Ultrafine primary particles; aggregates of 10- [89] [99]
50 nm diameter


9(8). 259-281.

Figure 10. (a), (b), (c), (d): Carbonaceous particles from an altitude of 17.4 km in the polar
stratosphere from [84]; (a) and (b) are amorphous, (c) and (d) showing regions of linear
ordering. A from [100] and B from [101] are carbonaceous coal fly ash nanoparticles that also
show linear structures, set off in B by white lines

Nanoparticles, lofted into the stratosphere [102-104], display a range of compositions
characteristic of coal fly ash, as illustrated in Figures 11 and 12 by particles captured from Polar
Stratospheric Clouds within the Arctic vortex [105].

Figure 11. Left: Pb-rich nanoparticle collected from Polar Stratospheric Clouds within the Arctic
vortex [105]; Right: similar PbS nanoparticle from coal fly ash [106]



Figure 12: (a), (b) and (c): Nanoparticles collected from Polar Stratospheric Clouds within the
Arctic vortex from [105]; Numbered: Larger particles displaying similar, although non-identical
compositions. from coal fly ash [107]

Some idea of the compositional range of coal fly ash nanoparticles is shown in Table 2.


9(8). 259-281.

Table 2. Some examples of coal fly ash nanoparticle compositions
Coal Fly Ash Nanoparticle Compositions, Figure Numbers in Parentheses References
Hematite (1); Jarosite (2); Fe-rich in carbonaceous matrix (3); Fe-Si-Al (4) [108]
Ti-rich (2); Ti, Al-rich in char matrix (3); Fe-rich mixed with carbonaceous (4, [109]
5); Fe-Si-Al (6)
Rutile (1); Spheres containing Zn,Ni, Mg, Al (2); Jarosite pseudomorph (3); Fe- [110]
Pb-As particle (4); Carbonaceous (6), Quartz (7)
Al-Si-Ti-K-Mg-Fe carbonaceous sphere (3); Pb in carbon nanotubes (6) [111]
Glassy aluminosilicate (1); Al-Si carbonaceous (2); Carbon nano-tubes [112]
encapsulating fullerenes and Hg (3); Carbon-encapsulating As-Pb-Se-Br-Si-O
(4); As-bearing jarosite plus As-O-Pb amorphous, As-bearing carbonaceous +
Al-Si-Pb particle (5); Amorphous Al-Cr-Fe-Mg-Si-Ti (11)
Rock fragment + spinel + zircon (1); Al-Si-O-Fe-K-Ca sphere (4); P-Nd-Ce-La- [100]
Th particle (5); Hematite + goethite + magnetite (6)
Siderite containing Cd, Mo, Mn + nano-hemitite (3); Silicate containing As, Zr, [113]
U and Fe amorphous + nano-pyrite containing Se (6)
Fe-Cr particle (3); Iron oxide spinel (4) [114]

COAL FLY ASH KILLS OZONE
When coal is burned industrially, coal fly ash condenses and accumulates in the hot gases above
the burner. Nearly all of the chemical elements, present in trace amounts in the coal, become
concentrated in coal fly ash. Many, but not all, coal fly ash particles occur as spheres which owe
their shape to the surface tension of the suspended melt. Coal fly ash particles range in size from
a few nm to tens of µm across and tend to be disequilibrium assemblages, having formed rapidly
in an unnatural environment. Consequently, coal fly ash occurs in a multitude of elemental
combinations and poses great risks to human and environmental health [12, 13].

Primary elements in coal fly ash are oxides of silicon (Si), Aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and calcium
(Ca), with lesser amounts of magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S), sodium (Na), Chlorine (Cl), and
potassium (K). Carbon (C) is present in its elemental form. The many trace elements in coal fly
ash include arsenic (As), barium (Ba), beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper
(Cu), lead (Pb), manganese (Mn), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), phosphorus (P), selenium (Se),
strontium (Sr), thallium (TI), thorium (Th), titanium (Ti), uranium (U), vanadium (V) and zinc
(Zn). Generally, concentrations of these trace elements in coal fly ash are typically higher than
those found in the Earth’s crust, soil, or even solid coal [115]. At least 39 elements can be
partially extracted from coal fly ash by exposure to water [69]. Aerosolized coal fly ash makes
atmospheric water more electrically conductive because of the many dissolved, ionized
elements [116].

Ozone is destroyed by reaction with halogens [117, 118]. Coal burning in China led to an
unexpectedly large atmospheric component of reactive bromine and chlorine in the
atmosphere [119]. Coal fly ash contains halogen elements in the ranges shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Range of halogen element contents in coal fly ash [120].
Chlorine µg/g Bromine µg/g Fluorine µg/g Iodine µg/g
13 – 25,000 0.3 – 670 0.4 – 624 0.1 – 200



Experiments are sometimes made to render coal fly ash safer and more amenable for
commercial use, for example, as a component of cement. Experiments that employ ozone
provide important information as to the ability of coal fly ash to destroy ozone. For example,
the surfaces of coal fly ash carbon particles are oxidized by ozone [121] demonstrating that coal
fly ash carbon particles kill ozone. Similar investigations also indicate that coal fly ash kills
ozone [122, 123].

Inferences regarding ozone destruction by the components of coal fly ash can be made on the
basis of ozone destruction by similar compounds: Ozone is consumed by reaction with carbon
[124, 125]. Ozone is also consumed by reactions with mineral oxides [126-130]. Furthermore,
ozone is consumed by reactions with oxides of iron , manganese [131, 132]. Additionally, ozone
is consumed by reactions with metals [133, 134] and noble metals [132, 135]. All of these
substances occur in coal fly ash nanoparticles.

POLAR STRATOSPHERIC CLOUDS AND OZONE DEPLETION
On the basis of three consecutive years of observations, Hamill et al. [77] notes: “[W]e show that
the evaporation of the [Antarctic Polar Stratospheric] cloud is highly correlated in time with the
decrease in ozone concentration.” There is general acknowledgement that aerosol particles can
serve as cloud nuclei, however, nucleation is typically the extent of discussion. Our experience
with aerosolized coal fly ash particles brought to ground by snowfall sheds some light on the
connections between Polar Stratospheric Clouds and stratospheric ozone depletion.

Coal fly ash particles, lofted into the stratosphere, not only serve as ice-nucleating agents, but
are further trapped by clouds, including Polar Stratospheric Clouds. In springtime, the icy
stratospheric clouds melt/evaporate releasing their trapped coal fly ash particles, and making
those ozone-consuming coal fly ash particles readily available for reaction with and destruction
of ambient stratospheric ozone.

CONCLUSIONS
We have presented compelling evidence that supports our contention that aerosolized coal fly
ash particles are the main agents responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion, not
chlorofluorocarbon gases. Aerosolized coal fly ash particles, uplifted to the stratosphere, not
only serve as ice-nucleating agents, but are trapped and concentrated in stratospheric clouds,
including Polar Stratospheric Clouds. In springtime, as stratospheric clouds begin to
melt/evaporate, said ozone-consuming coal fly ash particles are released making them
available to react with and consume stratospheric ozone.

Aerosolized coal fly ash particles are responsible, not only for the destruction of stratospheric
ozone, which shields surface-life from deadly solar ultraviolet radiation, but for harm to human
and environmental health, including neurodegenerative disease [15], COPD and respiratory
disease [16, 17], lung cancer [18], cardiovascular disease [19], COVID-19 and
immunopathology [20, 21].

Aerosolized coal fly ash contributes to global warming [22], disrupts habitats [23],
contaminates the environment with mercury [24], decimates populations of insects [25], bats
[26], and birds [27]. Aerosolized coal fly ash also kills trees [28, 29], exacerbates wildfires [30],

9(8). 259-281.

enables harmful algae in our waters [31], and, destroys the stratospheric ozone layer that
shields surface-life from the sun’s deadly ultraviolet radiation [32, 33].

Despite the official narratives of “ozone recovery” due to the Montreal Protocol, stratospheric
ozone levels continue to decline [34]. Ozone depletion has already led to an alarming increase
in deadly ultraviolet radiation, UV-B and UV-C, penetration to Earth’s surface, with increasingly
apparent devastation to both plants and animals [38]

The global technological assault on our planet’s natural environment and all its biota by
barbarian entities without compassion or remorse is no less than Planetary Treason. Unless
global populations demand an end to the technological assault on our environment, replete
with its dissemination of false information [136], we will inevitably continue to charge forward
in the first ever anthropogenic species extinction.

Geoengineering, including “solar radiation management,” falsely portrayed in the scientific
literature as a future endeavor necessary to combat global warming, has been going on for
decades with devastating results, including causing global warming. All of those who
participate in systematically altering Earth’s natural environment [12, 13, 137-139], we allege,
are complicit in the crime of Planetary Treason, the legal basis of which is every persons’ right
to self-defense.

One has only to tune into the terrible suffering of the natural world (Figure 1) and look up to
the obvious atrocities in our skies (Figure 2) to understand our dire situation. Our time is short,
it’s less than a minute before midnight for climate collapse and complete biosphere breakdown.
Our children face a ghastly future, potentially within the current decade.

All geoengineering must cease. All sources of aerosolized coal fly ash must be reduced and
eliminated. Tropospheric jet-spraying of coal fly ash and any other particulate matter must
cease and desist. That is necessary to salvage what we can of Earth’s vital life support systems,
including the stratospheric ozone layer.

References
1. Ceballos, G., P.R. Ehrlich, and R. Dirzo, Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by
vertebrate population losses and declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2017. 114(30): p.
E6089-E6096.
2. Blanchard, J., Living Planet Report 2020: Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss. 2020.
3. Dirzo, R., et al., Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science, 2014. 345(6195): p. 401-406.
4. Bradshaw, C.J., et al., Underestimating the challenges of avoiding a ghastly future. Frontiers in Conservation
Science, 2021. 1: p. 9.
5. http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm
6. Herndon, J.M., M. Whiteside, and I. Baldwin, The ENMOD treaty and the sanctioned assault on agriculture and
human and environmental health. Agrotechnology, 2020. 9(191): p. 1-9.
7. Herndon, J.M., An indication of intentional efforts to cause global warming and glacier melting. J. Geography
Environ. Earth Sci. Int., 2017. 9(1): p. 1-11.
8. Herndon, J.M., Evidence of variable Earth-heat production, global non-anthropogenic climate change, and
geoengineered global warming and polar melting. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2017. 10(1): p. 16.


9. Herndon, J.M., Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth's biota by clandestine geoengineering activity:
implications for India. Curr. Sci., 2015. 108(12): p. 2173-2177.
10. Herndon, J.M., Adverse agricultural consequences of weather modification. AGRIVITA Journal of agricultural
science, 2016. 38(3): p. 213-221.
11. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Geophysical consequences of tropospheric particulate heating: Further
evidence that anthropogenic global warming is principally caused by particulate pollution. Journal of Geography,
Environment and Earth Science International, 2019. 22(4): p. 1-23.
12. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Intentional destruction of life on Earth. Advances in Social Sciences Research
Journal, 2021. 8(7): p. 295-309.
13. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Chemtrails are not Contrails: The Face of Evil2022: Amazon Kindle Direct
Publishing https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09X49TGWB?ref_=pe_3052080_397514860
14. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Aerosol particulates, SARS-CoV-2, and the broader potential for global
devastation. Open Access Journal of Internal Medicine, 2020. 3(1): p. 14-21.
15. Whiteside, M. and J.M. Herndon, Aerosolized coal fly ash: Risk factor for neurodegenerative disease. Journal of
Advances in Medicine and Medical Research, 2018. 25(10): p. 1-11.
16. Whiteside, M. and J.M. Herndon, Aerosolized coal fly ash: Risk factor for COPD and respiratory disease. Journal
of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research, 2018. 26(7): p. 1-13.
17. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Geoengineering: The deadly new global “Miasma”. Journal of Advances in
Medicine and Medical Research, 2019. 29(12): p. 1-8.
18. Whiteside, M. and J.M. Herndon, Coal fly ash aerosol: Risk factor for lung cancer. Journal of Advances in
Medicine and Medical Research, 2018. 25(4): p. 1-10.
19. Whiteside, M. and J.M. Herndon, Geoengineering, coal fly ash and the new heart-Iron connection: Universal
exposure to iron oxide nanoparticulates. Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research, 2019. 31(1): p. 1-
20.
20. Whiteside, M. and J.M. Herndon, COVID-19, immunopathology, particulate pollution, and iron balance. Journal
of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research, 2020. 32(18): p. 43-60.
21. Whiteside, M. and J.M. Herndon, Aerosol particulates, SARS-Co-2, and the broader potential for global
devastation. Open Access Journal of Internal Medicine, 2022. 3(1): p. 14-21.
22. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Further evidence that particulate pollution is the principal cause of global
warming: Humanitarian considerations. Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International,
2019. 2 (1): p. 1-11.
23. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Further evidence of coal fly ash utilization in tropospheric geoengineering:
Implications on human and environmental health. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2017. 9(1): p. 1-8.
24. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Contamination of the biosphere with mercury: Another potential consequence
of on-going climate manipulation using aerosolized coal fly ash J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2017. 13(1): p. 1-
11.
25. Whiteside, M. and J.M. Herndon, Previously unacknowledged potential factors in catastrophic bee and insect
die-off arising from coal fly ash geoengineering Asian J. Biol., 2018. 6(4): p. 1-13.
26. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Unacknowledged potential factors in catastrophic bat die-off arising from coal
fly ash geoengineering. Asian Journal of Biology, 2019. 8(4): p. 1-13.
27. Whiteside, M. and J.M. Herndon, Aerosolized coal fly ash: A previously unrecognized primary factor in the
catastrophic global demise of bird populations and species. Asian J. Biol., 2018. 6(4): p. 1-13.
28. Herndon, J.M., D.D. Williams, and M. Whiteside, Previously unrecognized primary factors in the demise of
endangered torrey pines: A microcosm of global forest die-offs. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn. , 2018. 16(4): p. 1-
14.

9(8). 259-281.

29. Herndon, J.M., D.D. Williams, and M.W. Whiteside, Ancient Giant Sequoias are dying: Scientists refuse to
acknowledge the cause. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 2021. 8(9): p. 57-70.
30. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, California wildfires: Role of undisclosed atmospheric manipulation and
geoengineering. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2018. 17(3): p. 1-18.
31. Whiteside, M. and J.M. Herndon, Role of aerosolized coal fly ash in the global plankton imbalance: Case of
Florida's toxic algae crisi. Asian Journal of Biology, 2019. 8(2): p. 1-24.
32. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Aerosolized coal fly ash particles, the main cause of stratospheric ozone
depletion, not chlorofluorocarbon gases. European Journal of Applied Sciences, 2022. 10(3): p. 586-603.
33. Whiteside, M. and J.M. Herndon, Destruction of stratospheric ozone: Role of aerosolized coal fly ash iron.
European Journal of Applied Sciences, 2022. 10(4): p. 143-153.
34. Ball, W.T., et al., Evidence for a continuous decline in lower stratospheric ozone offsetting ozone layer recovery.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2018. 18(2): p. 1379-1394.
35. D'Antoni, H., et al., Extreme environments in the forests of Ushuaia, Argentina. Geophysical Research Letters,
2007. 34(22).
36. Córdoba, C., et al., The detection of solar ultraviolet-C radiation using KCl:Eu2+ thermoluminescence
dosemeters. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 1997. 30(21): p. 3024.
37. de Cárcer, I.A., et al., KCl: Eu2+ as a solar UV-C radiation dosimeter. Optically stimulated luminescence and
thermoluminescence analyses. Journal of Rare Earths, 2009. 27(4): p. 579-583.
38. Herndon, J.M., R.D. Hoisington, and M. Whiteside, Deadly ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B penetration to Earth’s
surface: Human and environmental health implications. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2018. 14(2): p. 1-11.
39. Herndon, J.M., Air pollution, not greenhouse gases: The principal cause of global warming. J. Geog. Environ.
Earth Sci. Intn., 2018. 17(2): p. 1-8.
40. Herndon, J.M., Scientific misrepresentation and the climate-science cartel. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn.,
2018. 18(2): p. 1-13.
41. Herndon, J.M., Fundamental climate science error: Concomitant harm to humanity and the environment J. Geog.
Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2018. 18(3): p. 1-12.
42. Herndon, J.M., Role of atmospheric convection in global warming. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2019. 19(4):
p. 1-8.
43. Herndon, J.M., World War II holds the key to understanding global warming and the challenge facing science
and society. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2019. 23(4): p. 1-13.
44. Herndon, J.M., True science for government leaders and educators: The main cause of global warming.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 2020. 7(7): p. 106-114.
45. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
46. Molina, M.J. and F.S. Rowland, Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine atom-catalysed
destruction of ozone. Nature, 1974. 249: p. 810-812.
47. https://www.unep.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol
48. Ries, G., et al., Elevated UV-B radiation reduces genome stability in plants. Nature, 2000. 406(6791): p. 98.
49. Benca, J.P., I.A. Duijnstee, and C.V. Looy, UV-B–induced forest sterility: Implications of ozone shield failure in
Earth’s largest extinction. Science Advances, 2018. 4(2): p. e1700618.
50. Danon, A. and P. Gallois, UV-C radiation induces apoptotic-like changes in Arabidopsis thaliana. FEBS letters,
1998. 437(1-2): p. 131-136.
51. Lyons, M., et al., DNA damage induced by ultraviolet radiation in coral-reef microbial communities. Marine
Biology, 1998. 130(3): p. 537-543.


52. Basti, D., et al., Recovery from a near-lethal exposure to ultraviolet-C radiation in a scleractinian coral. Journal
of invertebrate pathology, 2009. 101(1): p. 43-48.
53. Hori, M., et al., Lethal effects of short-wavelength visible light on insects. Scientific Reports, 2014. 4: p. 7383.
54. Reed, N.G., The history of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation for air disinfection. Public health reports, 2010.
125(1): p. 15-27.
55. Witze, A., Rare ozone hole opens over Arctic--and it's big. Nature, 2020. 580(7801): p. 18-20.
56. Lu, Q.-B., Observation of large and all-season ozone losses over the tropics. AIP Advances, 2022. 12(7): p.
075006.
57. Bernhard, G.H., et al., Updated analysis of data from Palmer Station, Antarctica (64° S), and San Diego,
California (32° N), confirms large effect of the Antarctic ozone hole on UV radiation. Photochemical &
Photobiological Sciences, 2022. 21(3): p. 373-384. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
58. Cordero, R.R., et al., Persistent extreme ultraviolet irradiance in Antarctica despite the ozone recovery onset.
Scientific reports, 2022. 12(1): p. 1-10.
59. Takahashi, T., et al., Measurement of solar UV radiation in antarctica with collagen sheets. Photochemical &
Photobiological Sciences, 2012. 11(7): p. 1193-1200.
60. Dwivedi, A. and M.K. Jain, Fly ash–waste management and overview: A Review. Recent Research in Science and
Technology, 2014. 6(1).
61. Huang, S.-H. and C.-C. Chen, Ultrafine aerosol penetration through electrostatic precipitators. Environmental
science & technology, 2002. 36(21): p. 4625-4632.
62. Baxter, M., Environmental radioactivity: A perspective on industrial contributions. IAEA Bulletin, 1993. 35(2):
p. 33-38.
63. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Nature as a Weapon of Global War: The Deliberate Destruction of Life on
Earth2021, Worldwide: Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09KN2LFXL/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1636027677&sr=8
-1
64. Herndon, J.M., R.D. Hoisington, and M. Whiteside, Chemtrails are not contrails: Radiometric evidence. J. Geog.
Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2020. 24(2): p. 22-29.
65. http://www.nuclearplanet.com/USAF.pdf
66. Shearer, C., et al., Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret large-scale atmospheric
spraying program. Environ. Res. Lett., 2016. 11(8): p. p. 084011.
67. Tingley, D. and G. Wagner, Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media. Palgrave
Communications, 2017. 3(1): p. 12.
68. Herndon, J.M., Evidence of coal-fly-ash toxic chemical geoengineering in the troposphere: Consequences for
public health Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015. 12(8).
69. Moreno, N., et al., Physico-chemical characteristics of European pulverized coal combustion fly ashes. Fuel,
2005. 84: p. 1351-1363.
70. Suloway, J.J., et al., Chemical and toxicological properties of coal fly ash, in Environmental Geology Notes
1051983, Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources: Illinois.
71. Herndon, J.M., D.D. Williams, and M. Whiteside, Previously unrecognized primary factors in the demise of
endangered torrey pines: A microcosm of global forest die-offs. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn. , 2018. 16(4): p. 1-
14.
72. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Further evidence of coal fly ash utilization in tropospheric geoengineering:
Implications on human and environmental health. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2017. 9(1): p. 1-8.
73. Rosinski, J., et al., Cirrus clouds as collectors of aerosol particles. Journal of Geophysical Research, 1970.
75(15): p. 2961-2973.

9(8). 259-281.

74. Chen, Y., et al., Investigation of primary fine particulate matter from coal combustion by computer-controlled
scanning electron microscopy. Fuel Processing Technology, 2004. 85(6-7): p. 743-761.
75. Kopp, E., On the abundance of metal ions in the lower ionosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space
Physics, 1997. 102(A5): p. 9667-9674.
76. McCormick, M., et al., Polar stratospheric cloud sightings by SAM II. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 1982.
39(6): p. 1387-1397
77. Hamill, P., O. Toon, and R. Turco, Characteristics of polar stratospheric clouds during the formation of the
Antarctic ozone hole. Geophysical research letters, 1986. 13(12): p. 1288-1291.
78. Plane, J.M., et al., Removal of meteoric iron on polar mesospheric clouds. Science, 2004. 304(5669): p. 426-428.
79. Umo, N.S., et al., Enhanced ice nucleation activity of coal fly ash aerosol particles initiated by ice-filled pores.
Atmospheric chemistry and physics, 2019. 19(13): p. 8783-8800.
80. Cziczo, D.J., et al., Clarifying the dominant sources and mechanisms of cirrus cloud formation. Science, 2013.
340(6138): p. 1320-1324.
81. Richardson, M.S., et al., Measurements of heterogeneous ice nuclei in the western United States in springtime
and their relation to aerosol characteristics. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2007. 112(D2).
82. Das, T., B.K. Saikia, and B.P. Baruah, Formation of carbon nano-balls and carbon nano-tubes from northeast
Indian Tertiary coal: value added products from low grade coal. Gondwana Research, 2016. 31: p. 295-304.
83. Alam, J., et al., Recent advances in methods for the recovery of carbon nanominerals and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons from coal fly ash and their emerging applications. Crystals, 2021. 11(2): p. 88.
84. Schütze, K., et al., Submicrometer refractory carbonaceous particles in the polar stratosphere. 2017.
85. Francis, A.H., Electronic Structure Calculations on Fullerenes and Their Derivatives By Jerzy Cioslowski (Florida
State University). Oxford University Press: New York. 1995. ix + 281 pp. $65.00. ISBN 0-19-508806-9. Journal of the
American Chemical Society, 1996. 118(39): p. 9458-9458.
86. Dosodia, A., et al., Development of Catalyst Free Carbon Nanotubes from Coal and Waste Plastics. Fullerenes,
Nanotubes and Carbon Nanostructures, 2009. 17(5): p. 567-582.
87. Tiwari, A.J., M. Ashraf-Khorassani, and L.C. Marr, C60 fullerenes from combustion of common fuels. Science of
The Total Environment, 2016. 547: p. 254-260.
88. Saikia, J., et al., Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) around tea processing industries using high-sulfur
coals. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 2017. 39(5): p. 1101-1116.
89. Hower, J.C., et al., Association of the Sites of Heavy Metals with Nanoscale Carbon in a Kentucky Electrostatic
Precipitator Fly Ash. Environmental Science & Technology, 2008. 42(22): p. 8471-8477.
90. Paul, K.T., et al., Preparation and Characterization of Nano structured Materials from Fly Ash: A Waste from
Thermal Power Stations, by High Energy Ball Milling. Nanoscale Research Letters, 2007. 2(8): p. 397.
91. Graham, U., et al. Ultra-Fine PM Derived from Fullerene-Like Carbon in Electrostatic Precipitator Fly Ash. in
Proceedings of 2008 AIChE Annual Meeting, Philadelphia (USA). 2008.
92. Salah, N., et al., Formation of Carbon Nanotubes from Carbon-Rich Fly Ash: Growth Parameters and Mechanism.
Materials and Manufacturing Processes, 2016. 31(2): p. 146-156.
93. Monthioux, M. and V.L. Kuznetsov, Who should be given the credit for the discovery of carbon nanotubes?
Carbon, 2006. 44(9): p. 1621-1623.
94. Kronbauer, M.A., et al., Geochemistry of ultra-fine and nano-compounds in coal gasification ashes: A synoptic
view. Science of The Total Environment, 2013. 456-457: p. 95-103.
95. Chen, Y., et al., Transmission electron microscopy investigation of ultrafine coal fly ash particles. Environ.
Science and Technogy, 2005. 39(4): p. 1144-1151.
96. Murr, L.E. and K.F. Soto, A TEM study of soot, carbon nanotubes, and related fullerene nanopolyhedra in
common fuel-gas combustion sources. Materials Characterization, 2005. 55(1): p. 50-65.


97. Moon, M.-W., et al., Nanostructured Carbon Materials. Journal of Nanomaterials, 2015. 2015: p. 916834.
98. Everson, R.C., et al., Reaction kinetics of pulverized coal-chars derived from inertinite-rich coal discards:
Gasification with carbon dioxide and steam. Fuel, 2006. 85(7): p. 1076-1082.
99. Chen, Z., et al., Energy Storage: Confined Assembly of Hollow Carbon Spheres in Carbonaceous Nanotube: A
Spheres-in-Tube Carbon Nanostructure with Hierarchical Porosity for High-Performance Supercapacitor (Small
19/2018). Small, 2018. 14(19): p. 1870089.
100. Oliveira, M.L., et al., Nano-mineralogical investigation of coal and fly ashes from coal-based captive power
plant (India): an introduction of occupational health hazards. Science of the Total Environment, 2014. 468: p.
1128-1137.
101. Silva, L.F., et al., Nanometric particles of high economic value in coal fire region: opportunities for social
improvement. Journal of cleaner production, 2020. 256: p. 120480.
102. de Reus, M., et al., Particle production in the lowermost stratosphere by convective lifting of the tropopause.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 1999. 104(D19): p. 23935-23940.
103. Baars, H., et al., The unprecedented 2017–2018 stratospheric smoke event: decay phase and aerosol properties
observed with the EARLINET. Atmospheric chemistry and physics, 2019. 19(23): p. 15183-15198.
104. Nielsen, J.K., et al., Solid particles in the tropical lowest stratosphere. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,
2007. 7(3): p. 685-695.
105. Ebert, M., et al., Chemical analysis of refractory stratospheric aerosol particles collected within the arctic
vortex and inside polar stratospheric clouds. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2016. 16(13): p. 8405-8421.
106. Smołka-Danielowska, D., Heavy metals in fly ash from a coal-fired power station in Poland. Polish Journal of
Environmental Studies, 2006. 15(6).
107. Vu, D.-H., et al., Composition and morphology characteristics of magnetic fractions of coal fly ash wastes
processed in high-temperature exposure in thermal power plants. Applied Sciences, 2019. 9(9): p. 1964.
108. Silva, L., T. Moreno, and X. Querol, An introductory TEM study of Fe-nanominerals within coal fly ash. Science
of the Total Environment, 2009. 407(17): p. 4972-4974.
109. Chen, Y., et al., Characterization of ultrafine coal fly ash particles by energy filtered TEM. Journal of
Microscopy, 2005. 217(3): p. 225-234.
110. Martinello, K., et al., Direct identification of hazardous elements in ultra-fine and nanominerals from coal fly
ash produced during diesel co-firing. Science of the Total Environment, 2014. 470: p. 444-452.
111. Ribeiro, J., et al., Extensive FE-SEM/EDS, HR-TEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS studies of micron-to nano-particles in
anthracite fly ash. Science of the total environment, 2013. 452: p. 98-107.
112. Silva, L.F., et al., Fullerenes and metallofullerenes in coal-fired stoker fly ash. Coal Combustion and Gasification
Products, 2010. 2: p. 66-79.
113. Dias, C.L., et al., Nanominerals and ultrafine particles from coal fires from Santa Catarina, South Brazil.
International Journal of Coal Geology, 2014. 122: p. 50-60.
114. Linak, W.P., et al., Ultrafine ash aerosols from coal combustion: Characterization and health effects.
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2007. 31(2): p. 1929-1937.
115. Fisher, G.L., Biomedically relevant chemical and physical properties of coal combustion products. Environ.
Health Persp., 1983. 47: p. 189-199.
116. Herndon, J.M., M. Whiteside, and I. Baldwin, Fifty Years after “How to Wreck the Environment”: Anthropogenic
Extinction of Life on Earth. J. Geog. Environ. Earth Sci. Intn., 2018. 16(3): p. 1-15.
117. Simpson, W.R., et al., Halogens and their role in polar boundary-layer ozone depletion. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 2007. 7(16): p. 4375-4418.
118. Read, K.A., et al., Extensive halogen-mediated ozone destruction over the tropical Atlantic Ocean. Nature, 2008.
453(7199): p. 1232-1235.

9(8). 259-281.

119. Peng, X., et al., An unexpected large continental source of reactive bromine and chlorine with significant
impact on wintertime air quality. National science review, 2021. 8(7): p. nwaa304.
120. NRC, Trace-element Geochemistry of Coal Resource Development Related to Environmental Quality and
Health1980: National Academy Press.
121. Pedersen, K.H., et al., Post-treatment of fly ash by ozone in a fixed bed reactor. Energy & fuels, 2009. 23(1): p.
280-285.
122. Chen, X., et al. FLY ASH BENEFICATION WITH OZONE: MECHANISM OF ADSORPTION SUPRESSION. in
ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY. 2002. AMER CHEMICAL SOC 1155 16TH ST, NW,
WASHINGTON, DC 20036 USA.
123. Alebic-Juretic, A., T. Cvitas, and L. Klasinc, Ozone destruction on solid particles. Environmental monitoring
and assessment, 1997. 44(1): p. 241-247.
124. Atale, S., et al., Ozone reactions with various carbon materials. Jap Pat CA, 1995. 123: p. 121871.
125. Zhang, H., J.Y. Lee, and H. Liu, Ozone Decomposition on Defective Graphene: Insights from Modeling. The
Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 2021. 125(20): p. 10948-10954.
126. Michel, A., C. Usher, and V. Grassian, Reactive uptake of ozone on mineral oxides and mineral dusts.
Atmospheric Environment, 2003. 37(23): p. 3201-3211.
127. Coates Fuentes, Z.L., T.M. Kucinski, and R.Z. Hinrichs, Ozone decomposition on kaolinite as a function of
monoterpene exposure and relative humidity. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 2018. 2(1): p. 21-30.
128. Lasne, J., M.N. Romanias, and F. Thevenet, Ozone uptake by clay dusts under environmental conditions. ACS
Earth and Space Chemistry, 2018. 2(9): p. 904-914.
129. Hanisch, F. and J. Crowley, Ozone decomposition on Saharan dust: an experimental investigation. Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics Discussions, 2002. 2(6): p. 1809-1845.
130. Yan, L., J. Bing, and H. Wu, The behavior of ozone on different iron oxides surface sites in water. Scientific
reports, 2019. 9(1): p. 1-10.
131. Xu, Z., et al., A novel γ-like MnO2 catalyst for ozone decomposition in high humidity conditions. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 2021. 420: p. 126641.
132. Heisig, C., W. Zhang, and S.T. Oyama, Decomposition of ozone using carbon-supported metal oxide catalysts.
Applied catalysis B: environmental, 1997. 14(1-2): p. 117-129.
133. Kashtanov, L., N. Ivanova, and B. Rizhov, Catalytic activity of metals in ozone decomposition. J. Applied
Chemistry, 1936. 9: p. 2176-2182.
134. Reckhow, D.A., et al., Oxidation Of Iron And Manganese By Ozone. Ozone: Science & Engineering, 1991. 13(6):
p. 675-695.
135. Emelyanova, G., V. Lebedev, and N. Kobozev, Catalytic activity of noble metals in ozone destruction. J Phys
Chem, 1964. 38: p. 170-180.
136. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Technology Bill of Rights needed to protect human and environmental health
and the U. S. Constitutional Republic Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 2020. 7(6).
137. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Global Environmental Warfare. Advances in Social Sciences Research
Journal, 2020. 7(4): p. 411-422.
138. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Environmental warfare against American citizens: An open letter to the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 2020. 7(8): p. 382-397.
139. Herndon, J.M. and M. Whiteside, Viral environmental warfare: Technology Bill of Rights critically needed.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 2021. 8(11): p. 1-19.


View publication stats

Collapse of Earth's Biosphere A Case of Planetary Treason

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Collapse of Earth's Biosphere A Case of Planetary Treason

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Collapse of Earth's Biosphere: A Case of Planetary Treason

Article in Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal · August 2022

J. Marvin Herndon Mark Whiteside

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Collapse of Earth’s Biosphere: A Case of Planetary Treason

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 260

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.98.12935 261

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 262

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.98.12935 263

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 264

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.98.12935 265

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 266

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.98.12935 267

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 268

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.98.12935 269

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 270

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.98.12935 271

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 272

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.98.12935 273

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 274

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.98.12935 275

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 276

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.98.12935 277

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 278

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.98.12935 279

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 280

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.98.12935 281

View publication stats

You might also like